The Dogma of Democracy

"Democracy has its faults, because people have their faults. Like owner, like store." Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

The Dogma of Democracy doesn't always make the world better:

The break-up of the Soviet empire and the “shock therapy” that followed it produced new oligarchies and kleptocracies that have at their disposal innovative tools of finance and communication; the advance of political Islam has placed millions of Muslims, who make up a quarter of the world’s population, under more restrictive theocratic rule; tribes, clans, and sectarian groups have become the most important actors in the post-colonial states of Africa and the Middle East; China has brought back despotic mercantilism.

A good, albeit somewhat long read can be found here: The Truth About Our Libertarian Age, Mark Lilla

Our hubris is to think that we no longer have to think hard or pay attention or look for connections, that all we have to do is stick to our “democratic values” and economic models and faith in the individual and all will be well.  

Libertarianism: A Beginner's Guide

Libertarians and conservatives are two different animals.  If you need an in-depth explanation, just try calling a libertarian a conservative on steroids or some such, and you will be treated to a full, vociferous explanation.

Conservatives want to conserve; libertarians, as the name implies, put personal liberty first.  From there, libertarianism branches out into a multitude of variants.

Lew Rockwell vs. The Kochtopus

Perceptive outsiders perceive two principle libertarian camps in America:  Lew Rockwell's and the Koch brothers.  From my own vantage point I tend to agree with that gross taxonomy.

I'm not a true libertarian, there's too much Russell Kirk conservatism in me, but I do find frequent recourse to libertarian sources in my daily combat against progressive statism.  It provides a much more coherent pro-liberty philosophy than contemporary conservatism.  I would make the same comment of modern day liberalism, but that is nothing but a core-less, twitching bundle of outraged claims on other people's stuff wrapped in logical incoherence.

Anarchy:  The Extreme End of Libertarianism

After my initial tentative forays into the land of libertarianism, I found myself gravitating towards mises.org, a most excellent Austrian School Libertarian website.  It was founded by Lew Rockwell, but I find him and his brand of libertarianism hateful and repellent. Many think it was Rockwell behind the racist Ron Paul newsletters, and brilliant Austrian economist Murray Rothbard gets mentioned often by Southern Law Poverty Center types as an abettor and racist, although I've never been able to sort that out.

I enjoy reading Rothbard's works about money and economics, and I continue to frequent Mises.org because I have found nothing racist or rabidly anti-American there.  It is a place of scholarship that is also accessible to ordinary people who do not have economics degrees.

On the other hand, I detest Rockwell's site, lewrockwell.com.  It is a cornucopia of anarchic insanity.  It is an OWS reading room where our soldiers are called criminals, and traitor Bradley Manning is a Hero.  Writers ingest and regurgitate Islamist rhetoric that essentially says our "meddling" is why they hate us., and we are treated to intellectual works that explain why our bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki makes us a criminal terror state.

I'm also turned off by Ayn Rand, a humorless, stentorian didact who knocked off God and put herself in his place.  She got the big things right:  Freedom is good, statism is bad, and people act in their own rational self-interest.  Good enough, but from there she proceeded to make a cult of it, assailing us with punctilious philosophical verbosity and interminably turgid prose seemingly designed to push the bounds of tediousness and run off all but the most stubborn.

These figures represent the extreme end of libertarianism, and I cannot abide them.  If anarcho-capitalism is so damned good, why hasn’t it worked anywhere?

F.A. Hayek is the sweet spot...

... and his ideological progeny can be found at CATO and Reason. So if you want to explore libertarianism but like me are repelled by anarchist extremists, start out by going to these two sites and reading some of the articles.  Don't be offended by their advocacy for gay marriage.  They also stand up for your church's right to not perform or recognize them.  Libertarians are not extreme conservatives, they are extreme liberty lovers in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.

Liberals don't understand Austrian Economics, but Ludwig von Mises Institute's declared arch-enemy, Reason does a nice job setting the record straight.  So if you want to know what the Austrian School is all about, those two articles are a good place to start.  If you're still intrigued, go to mises.org and dive in.

Further Reading:
Why I am not a Conservative - Friedrich A. Hayek
Why I am not an Austrian Economist - Bryan Caplan

Caught Between Libertarianism and Conservatism

My Stupid Shirts

I have vowed that I would vote for the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man over Obama, and if Newt gets the nomination, I'll get my chance to do so.

The only reason I can give for favoring Romney over Gingrich is that Romney is a capitalist, and Gingrich has been at the levers of governmental power his whole adult life.  I get the sense that at least Romney would know how to put the economy back together, even if his lustful statist urges worry me.

Santorum is qualified to be president, I think, but he worries me as well.  He's not just a statist, but a moralistic one.  And I share his moral values.  The difference between Santorum and I is that my Christian faith rules my life, but when discussing government and law, the US Constitution is my guide.  Nowhere does the constitution give government the right to dictate morals.

Libertarian-Conservative:  an Unstable Amalgam

Libertarianism and strict conservatism are not really compatible, and that explains much of the current GOP muddle.  Lured by the libertarian siren song, we've finally spat out the GOP's neither-hot-nor-cold conservative big government statism.

Modern-Day Republicanism is just progressivism with flags; moralistic we-say-so-ism dressed up in war and patriotism and religion.  In fact, it is damned near indistinguishable from Woodrow Wilson's Progressive conception of almost a century ago.

So now we find ourselves in a political cul-de-sac, heaping scorn on everyone who isn't Ron Paul, and yet unable to embrace the cranky small-government John the Baptist who has been crying out in the wilderness all these years.  Libertarianism lured us out of our ideological trenches, but now we are caught half-way, unable to embrace Paulism, which looks to conservatives almost indistinguishable from OWS.

There is a way out. Conservatives are on solid footing so long as we allow ourselves to be just as libertarian as the founding fathers. Any more than that, and we fall off of a cliff into a pit of incoherence and clashing incompatibilities.

Constitutionalism:  The Founders v. Ron Paul

Dr. Paul's constitutionalist claims strike me as trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

George Washington invaded Canada, and as president he donned his military uniform to lead a militia army in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. His protégé, Alexander Hamilton (one of the Federalist Papers authors) set up our nation's first central bank, and when a later congress voted against renewing it's charter, President Madison (another Federalist Papers author, and Father of the Constitution) established the Second Bank of America, another central bank. President Thomas Jefferson sent US Marines to the shores of Tripoli, and "The Last Founding Father" James Monroe's famous doctrine declared that any act by any European power to colonize any part of North or South America would be considered by the US government as an act of aggression to be met with military force.

Ron Paul is on the far side of the men who wrote the constitution and founded this nation.  Conservatives, like the founders, believe in an enduring moral order, and they are guided by custom and convention.  Libertarians clamor to tear down the wall; conservatives seek to know why it was put there in the first place before deciding to demolish it.

So its a tricky balancing act with a new equilibrium.  Some small government libertarianism of the founding father variety mixed in with a rediscovery of Russell Kirk Conservatism will put us back on solid footing.  Too bad no candidate fits the bill...  

Russell Kirk - 10 Conservative Principles
Gingrich: The Anti-Conservative
Gingrich vs Obama
My Stupid Shirts

When Liberalism Stood for Something

Billy Jack was a badass liberal, fighting for the poor and oppressed and administering spectacular martial arts beatdowns to their oppressors.  We didn't have a lot of blacks out west in the 60's and early 70's; Indians were the oppressed minority, and Billy Jack kicked big-time bigot ass in their defense.  I love his reverse crescents to the face and his leg sweeps were awesome.  As a youngster in the mid 70's I wore a black hat and a denim jacket because I wanted to be just like him...




Tom Laughlin, the actor, writer and independent producer who wrote and starred in the Billy Jack movies, is himself an impressive man; a Jungian who lives out his faith in God and who independently produced his movies. Before he became ill, he wrote extensively on some pretty deep stuff. He is also a liberal icon who has been a sincere champion of the people his entire adult life.

Like progressives before him, he fought the fights that needed to be fought. Today, the movement lacks big causes like civil rights or women's sufferage, but it keeps fighting anyway, not with fists and guns like Billy Jack, but with bullhorns and 1960's retro hippie agitprop and tired chants. And in a Marxian tragic farce twist, liberals now fight for the government establishment, not against it.

Liberalism writ large is Dead

The only big issue left is to pull the rug out from under the corporate welfare queens and the corrupt DC grandees who rail against them by day and then slip in through their back doors at night. 

Self-described liberals would do well to focus on the root of the word they stole: Liberty. Defend it in each person's life. Freedom for each of us to pursue our own happiness, to let our freak flags fly without 15 government permits.

If Americans cannot sell raw milk to willing buyers without risking a SWAT-team raid, then what area of life is left to individual choice? (Scrooge-Like Predictions)

Imagine an independent neighborhood economy based upon barter. Governments hate that, and pear-shaped regulators spill over with sadistic glee at punishing independent daycare providers, home-churchers and free-lance food vendors. Imagine abolishing imminent domain and creating a nation where corporations cannot bribe politicians to seize the property of free citizens.

Marry 15 gay lovers, smoke dope all day, own 100 guns. I don't care what you do with your life so long as it doesn't impinge on my liberties and the government doesn't confiscate my money to pay for your mistakes. Buy raw milk, sell raw milk. Start a business this afternoon based upon a brainstorm you got this morning. Do it without teams of lawyers, and hire people without the bureaucratic red tape.

Already, most Americans hand over about half their income to government. Just for fun, try to name a few areas of life that aren’t taxed or regulated by the government. The government can take away your children based merely on assertions of abuse, or take your property and give it to a developer. You cannot build anything or remodel anything in your home, start a business, hire someone, drive anywhere, buy a firearm, make a political donation or do much of anything without being subject to myriad rules, regulations, taxes, fees, inspections, permits.  (Scrooge-Like Predictions) 

So my liberal friends, if you want to attract people to your cause, drop the big government statism, stop begging for "free" crap, and start walking and talking like Billy Jack. Like those wild horses galloping across the western plains, people gotta be free. 

Liberscarianism

Why I Cannot Support Ron Paul

The old progressive model is creaky and on the verge of collapse. Even some liberals will admit it is financially untenable. The orthodox statists scream for more taxpayer money, but everybody else realizes we can’t tax our way out of this.

Libertarianism is gaining a hearing from a populace that had previously viewed it as the milieu of nudist dope smokers, anarchists, and bow tied theorists. People are looking for solutions, but raw libertarianism is still too scary even for many small government types. It will take time, and the right people, for libertarianism to gain mainstream currency. Paul Ryan is not a libertarian, but he’s the kind of guy that will be needed: Smart, articulate, and able to deliver it all with a smile.

What's Wrong with Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson is an affable guy with a solid small-government record as governor of New Mexico, but his talk of legalizing heroin scares people. And libertarians shouldn’t accuse those folks of fearing liberty. Reasonable people are afraid that mainstreaming drug use will unleash deleterious effects, just like blasphemy, pornography and hundreds of other societal poisons did once we stopped combating them. So the fears, while debatable, are well founded.

Retreat will not bring Safety

Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive and dangerous. His rEVOLution rhetoric warmly unites liberty loving libertarians, leftwing Kucinichites, Neo-nazis, 9-11 Troofers, Isolationists, and sensible small government conservatives, but it is folly to believe that "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone."

Just because the gunslinger hangs up his spurs and spends evenings by the fireside doesn't mean old rivals won't still be gunning for him. And "them" is generally understood to refer to practitioners of a religion that split into two rival teams after the founder died and then set themselves to the grim task of slaughtering one another. 1500 years later they are still at it. Is Ron Paul really so naive as to believe that people who nurse thousand-year-old grudges will let The Great Satan go gently into that good isolationist night with fresh sins yet staining his unrepentant soul?

Sunni terrorists are not fighting for deposed Iranian secularists

Then there is the ridiculous contention that our meddling in Iran in the 50’s has spawned Sunni Islamists.

Our CIA deposing secular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh has been proffered by hoarse-throated lefties as the reason "they hate us." I am dismayed to see many of my fellow conservatives hoist this Noam Chomsky banner, because there are several problems with such simple-minded thinking. First, “they” are Islamists, and they have always been set in opposition to the leftwing intellectual professoriate class that Mossadegh represented. Had we not removed him, his fate would have been that of the secular intelligentsia who teamed with the Mullahs to topple the Shah in 1979: The Islamists slit the throats of their revolutionary partners of convenience, and the rest is history.

Blowback!

I am also dismayed to see some of my fellow conservatives pick up the blowback banner. Iranians didn't carry out the string of terrorist attacks bookended by the WTC bombings. The people we defended from Saddam Hussein carried out those attacks; and they are Sunni extremists who hate the Shia Persians!

We stopped aggression when we chased Saddam out of Kuwait, as we did when we went into The Balkans. Was the Kosovar Muslim who murdered US Air Force personnel at Frankfurt Airport blowback for our defense of his kith and kin against the bloody predations of Orthodox Christians?

The problem with the blowback argument is that world history is full of chain reactions. Blowback is nothing but the physics of human and societal interaction: humanity's equal and opposite reaction. We’d be wise to remember that good men doing nothing will also cause the dreaded blowback.

A Tower of Babble: False Dilemmas upon Logical Fallacies

In addition to Paul’s historical mis-readings and the logical fallacies they have spawned, we also must suffer breathless false dilemmas from his hard-core followers (thankfully, I don't hear these memes from my fellow Right Blogistanis who Support Dr. Paul) :

* Ron Paul is a constitutionalist -- If you don't vote for him you hate the constitution.

* If you aren't with Ron Paul on Israel you are a neocon.

* If you disagree with his foreign policy you are in favor of endless wars.

* If you agree that the CIA has done bad things then you must support dismantling it.

I don’t believe we should intervene everywhere; but we should never tie our hands and forswear intervening anywhere. I can concede that yes, the CIA has done some bad things, but it does not follow that the entire intelligence apparatus must be dismantled. Do Paulistas really want to gouge out America’s eyes and plug our ears? I don’t want us pulling dirty tricks on countries that do us no harm, but I do want us spying on enemies.

More "Constitutional" than the Founders?

Ron Paul supporters call him a constitutionalist, but nothing in our constitution prevents us from forming alliances with likeminded people around the world or taking action when authorized by congress.

George Washington invaded Canada, and as president he donned his military uniform to lead a militia army in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. His protégé, Alexander Hamilton (one of the Federalist Papers authors) set up our nation's first central bank, and when a later congress voted against renewing it's charter, President Madison (another Federalist Papers author, and Father of the Constitution) established the Second Bank of America, another central bank. President Thomas Jefferson sent US Marines to the shores of Tripoli, and "The Last Founding Father" James Monroe's famous doctrine declared that any act by any European power to colonize any part of North or South America would be considered by the US government as an act of aggression to be met with military force. Would Ron Paul call these actions by our founders wrong?

Ron Paul rejects the isolationist tag while throwing up smoke screens about no more endless wars (a lefty trope), but he also thought we should have stayed out of WW II and his stated philosophies would have prevented us from winning the cold war. Western Civilization would look much different today if Dr. Paul's views had held sway. Forming military alliances, providing military assistance, and securing landing rights in other countries is a far cry from war-mongering. On the contrary, those actions, carried out prudently, save lives and money by deterring war.

The world is a messy place, with unprincipled actors brandishing horrible weapons capable of murder on a mass scale. Those who stubbornly stand upon principle will end up standing upon rubble. Between Ron Paul and the trigger-happy statists, there exists a sensible middle, and it is on firm constitutional footing.

I understand the Paulist urge of impatient libertarians and those disgusted with our statist federal monster, but Ron Paul ain’t the guy and America ain't ready for the libertarian full monty just yet.

Nick Gillespie - Ron Paul (a defense)
Yes Virginia, Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther
Statement from former Paul aid Eric Dondero
Tim Daniel – Ron Paul
Proof Positive - Ron Paul's Foreign Policy
Jeffrey Kuhner - Ron Paul's Moment
Dorothy Rabinowitz - What Ron Paul Thinks of America
Ron Paul’s Mischief Voters
PJ Media - Ron Paul, Troofer

Keynes: Economist of the Dictators

I don't know much about economics, but I do know that a politburo full of eggheads can crash the economic ship just like us simpletons in the free market can. Only the egghead crashes are much more spectacular.

Economics is the dismal science, so I hope this post is not too dismal. 

Ducky asked me about liquidity traps in one of his posts last week, and this this the response.  It's Keynes versus the Misesian free marketeers.  I've included lots of links for those who want to explore these pressing but timeless issues further.


Keynesianism is a cold, mechanistic theory sprung from an era when strongman dictatorships were admired for making the trains run on time

"[T]he Krugman/Keynesian viewpoint is based on an extremely mechanistic interpretation of human action. People within a market setting do not purchase goods they believe will meet their individual needs; no, they spend, as though the spending itself is the ultimate end of an economy." (The Deepening Depression)

To the Keynesian statists, we are merely cogs in the machine

Paul Krugman and the rest of the big government, spend spend spend, more stimulus crowd are Keynesians. They believe that if government just spends enough, it can stimulate a down economy. They also believe in the fiction, the fatal conceit, that government central planners can flatten the hills and fill in the valleys of the free market economy.

What modern-day Keynesians tend to forget is that Keynes’s recommendation for governments to spend more in times of economic crises was predicated on the assumption that government would bank up cash during the good times. As we are all now painfully aware, that didn’t happen.  They Keynesians were wrong, again, and the Austrian School has been vindicated, again.

After all, this Keynesian nonsense has had many trial runs, and it has failed every single time. And there are specific reasons: government spending drains reserve capital, nationalizations prop up inefficiencies, and money creation distorts reality and forestalls recovery.

It doesn't take a fortune-teller to discern that this hokum will not work to accomplish its stated aims. All it does is prop up the state and its friends at our expense. (Jeffrey Tucker - The Austrians were Right)

Governments worldwide spent like there was no tomorrow during the good times, so there is no reserve to draw from.  Keynesian stimulus must be funded by putting ourselves further in hock to Communist China. Do any of you know anyone who has borrowed his way to prosperity?   

Liquidity Traps and Other Keynesian Fictions

When Keynesian schemes collapse, as is happening now on a global scale, statists like Krugman resort to that shiniest of glittery baubles, the liquidity trap.
 

Liquidity Trap:  A theoretical fiction created to explain away the failures of Keynesianism.  The point at which you cannot induce people to borrow and spend, even if you give money away. 

The only reason they get by with such nonsense is because the average citizen has little understanding of economics.  There's a lot of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" in central-planned statist macroeconomics.

Swedish economist Richard Johnsson writes a short but dense riposte to this nonsense, The Liquidity Trap Myth.

William Anderson provides a less-scholarly, more layman-friendly explanation in his short article,  The Deepening Depression 

 Contra Krugman:  The Austrian School

Murray Rothbard delivered many a withering critique of Keynesianism.  Here are two good ones.  I have to point out that his critique of Reaganomics was principally due to the fact that Milton Friedman's supply-side theories were founded in Keynesianism, government manipulation of people and markets.

Rothbard – Keynesian Myths
Rothbard – Keynesianism Redux

 

Supply Side is Suspect as Well

Finally, Richard Ebeling delivers a critique of Supply Side economics.  He also explains why the Laffer Curve may be a wonderful visual aid used to explain a general concept, but it is not a viable mathematical model.

Supply Side economics is based upon Keynesian principles, and therefore Austrians see it as just another means for statists to chain We The People to the mill wheel of government, albeit in a perhaps more efficient fashion.

I know this may be confusing to those who haven't delved into the dismal science, but it's important to understand it, because this is what future arguments will be revolving around as the slow-motion global economic collapse continues.

See also:   Reason – How Long Will it Take for Keynesianism to Die?

To Form a More Libertarian Union

There are some encouraging signs emerging from the conservative ranks. Neoconservative foreign policy is dead, concludes Foreign Policy magazine. That may be overly optimistic, but it's safe to say it is on life support, with GOP armchair generals losing their taste for sending others off to war.

A second sign of new life in the GOP was the near-death of the immoral people-starving, money-wasting Ethanol program.

Cutting our foreign entanglements and ending wasteful government programs takes us towards a more libertarian nation, and that's a good thing.  Let us decide things at the state and local levels.  What suits us here in Colorado would rankle the nanny statists of Massachusetts and Chicago.

Getting the federal government out of our lives would also blessedly take much of the politics out of it as well:

"We need independence not just in politics but from politics," they write. "Contrary to the myths perpetuated by liberals and conservatives alike, the winning and losing of elections is not transformative of what matters most."

The things that truly matter in life (our families, friends, churches, communities, teams, relationships, and culture) do not stem from state capitols or Washington, D.C. (Heather Wilhelm – Hipsters Against the Political Machine)

This is key. As it stands now, everyday Americans must be invested in politics because politics and government has infested every last corner of the average American’s life. If you like to smoke, shoot guns, engage in homosexual activity, go to church, or perform other controversial activities, you’ve got to keep your ear to the ground and protect your interests by contributing to a criminal gang disguised as a political party.

This is what has driven me towards libertarianism. Unlike liberalism and conservatism, libertarianism does not condone or prohibit any particular human activity, so long as that activity does not interfere with the rights of others.

Getting the federal government out of our personal lives and back within the bounds of its constitutional mandate would save us trillions and just as important, take the air out of the interminable political arguments that waste our time.

The Left - Right Libertarian Link

When arguing with liberals such as a Truth 101, or a Jerry Critter or even a Jersey McJones, I become frustrated because I see that underneath the arguments, we share some fundamental goals, like a prosperous and free America.  It is the means we disagree on.

Roderick Long is a left-libertarian and he laments, as I do, our failure to bring those from the left into the libertarian fold.


His article, How to Reach the Left, is a masterpiece. It gives great insight into just what left-libertarianism looks like.  It is far from the loony left that haunts the Democrat party.  He disdains that crowd as the "Aristocratic Left," and is quite hostile to it...

These are left-wingers who have a particular vision of an idyllic society and are prepared to hammer into place anyone whose preferences or behavior don't align with the vision; in effect they see other people as their property.

More importantly, I think he has staked out some libertarian common ground where liberty lovers on the left and right could unite, if each group could drop some preconceived notions.

His argument rests upon the premise that we do not have a truly free market, and I agree with him on that...

Consider, for example, the recent debate in the United States over healthcare, in which the choice between our prevailing corporatist system of healthcare and a somewhat more socialistic one was presented as a choice between a free market and socialism — so that opponents of prevailing corporatism were tricked into supporting socialism as the antidote, and opponents of socialism were tricked into supporting the prevailing corporatism as the antidote.

it is true that free markets penalize irrational business decisions; but it will be difficult to convince people of this if [...] they continue to labor under the conflationist delusion that current economic conditions are a reasonable approximation to a free market. 

How do you like your tyranny?  Democrat or Republican?

Long’s thesis identifies the source of our contention:  The left's attempts to protect people from the tyranny of big business ends up making us slaves of the state.  The right thinks it is arguing for free markets, but the result is corporate fascism.  False freedom for the people, a gilded cage (to protect them from predators) for businessmen and bankers

Here's an Example:

So when conservative lawmakers strip away regulations on risky loans without repealing deposit insurance, what they are "deregulating" is not a purely private business, but rather a business that enjoys government-granted privileges — which is not the sort of deregulation that libertarians favor.

Libertarians favor taking away the government-granted privileges as well.  Doing otherwise creates a moral hazard.

The Problem of Corporations

I see some problems with big corporations, and I share some of the left’s unease with them.  Here is a left-libertarian critique of the corporation in a nutshell:

The problem with the corporate form is that it grants to private business a distinctive governmental feature — legal personhood, and the accompanying privilege of limited liability — without the correlative burden of democratic accountability; granting such a status, van Eeghen argues, constitutes an un-libertarian surrender of individual responsibility, and confers the benefits of ownership without its corresponding costs, thus enabling corporations to concentrate power and externalize risk in ways to which libertarians should object. (Mises Daily)

Piet-Hein van Eeghen readily acknowledges the benefits of corporations, but his critique makes sense.  For the pro-corporation argument, see  In Defense of the Corporation - Stephan Kinsella

Mo Bigger Government is Not the Answer

The answer to corporate behemoths can’t be to make government even bigger.  Too often government becomes the teammate of corporations instead of being the referee.  This spurs corporations to ever greater heights of irresponsibility, thanks to the government-provided safety net.

We need look no further than wall street, where whizz kids wrecked our economy and nobody went to jail because nobody broke any laws. Financial chieftains can crash an investment firm and destroy billions in wealth, paying no price whatsoever.  If that is not an invitation to irresponsibility, I don't know what is.

Making corporate heads, board members and officers financially liable for the actions of the corporation would go a long way towards snuffing the wild speculation and reckless gambling that continues to endanger our nation.  Knowing you will have to eat your losses engenders prudence.

Can left and right agree that exposing the big behemoths and the pseudo-capitalists to the vagaries of the free marketplace would be a good starting point?

Why the Attacks on the Koch Brothers?

Why the Attacks on the Koch Brothers?

The simple answer is, pop your head up and you’re going to get hammered. The right has been going after international billionaire megalomanic and currency crasher George Soros, so the left had to find someone on the right to do the same to.

As usual, the left's aim is cockeyed...
The Koch brothers are not on the “right.” They are pro-gay rights, anti-drug war, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act libertarians. They’ve even gone so far as to fund suspect activities like the ACLU and ballet! For more information on these patriotic Americans, go here, and here. For a particularly funny and (and true) take on the lefty attacks, go read epistemicfail’s righteous rant. It will take you less than five minutes, you’ll learn something, and you’ll split your sides laughing.

The “Anonymous” attacks on the Koch’s belies the fact that these shadowy WikiLeaks confreres of the internet are not info-anarchists, but just lefty nihilists wanting to burn it all down, man.

American Left:  Unhinged, Unbalanced, Unencumbered by Reality

The attacks on these men are not surprising. Modern-day progressivism is an incoherent, personality-based movement of various caliginous interests and agitation groups, loosely gathered, each to protect his or her own particular ideological or financial turf.

They shout “science!” and talk about free thinking, but demand we all bow down when Reverend Al Gore, International Church of Gaia, declares the earth will catch fire if we (not he) don’t all start driving electric cars and living in Gilligan’s Island huts. They demand we perform the very unscientific act of accepting their self-serving models and theories as dogma, lest they anathematize us as stupid hicks not worthy of even debating.

This is why the Koch's Threaten the Left:

Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want. (Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out)

The Koch brothers have become the latest villain in the progressive narrative

The most effective lefty attacks are those that point out that the Koch brothers fund conservative causes. Although they are libertarian, they’ve got to plant the flag somewhere, and conservatism holds the firmest, highest ground right now. Would these critics expect libertarians to make common cause with politically correct, doctrinaire progressives who cheer the growth of the state?

Conservatives are not such a bad fit, since they share the goal of rolling back the size of the federal government. Yes, Democrats share Koch values on gay marriage, but the left’s belief in the supremacy of the state blows the whole deal. No, conservatives are a better, but not perfect fit. They want to roll back government power and restore personal liberty. And by the way, states continue to decide the gay marriage question on their own, abortion is still legal, and more and more republicans are blowing on their burned fingers, vowing to avoid touching the hot stove of foreign intervention again.

Libertarianism is an existential threat to Progressivism

Going after the Koch’s is stabbing at the heart of the anti-government beast. Modern-day conservatism is hard to defend and wholly complicit in bringing about our current fiscal calamity; libertarianism is not. It has a cachet right now borne of it’s inherent logic. It resonates with our founding principles and it is just the jolt conservatism needed to shock it back into some semblance of logical coherence and consistency.

Libertarianism has contributed greatly to the intellectual ferment on the right. Paloecons battle neocons, with moderates preaching a middle way while fiscal conservatives call for a truce on moral issues. Many religious conservatives don’t like libertarians, but it’s all in play, which is why the conservative cause is attracting interest (and votes) from those in the middle. For this reason I say the right will continue to surge, and the left will continue it embarrassing shrivel.

The Koch Brothers' Agenda is Clear--The Left's is Not

We know what the Koch brothers stand for because they state it clearly in person and through the organizations they openly fund, like CATO and Reason. The Koch’s stand for liberty and personal responsibility. For this reason they oppose an ever more overweening state that leaves the US Constitution getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror.

What does Soros and the left want? What are their guiding principles? What is their end-game?

Libertarian Nation

Libertarian Nation?  We’re not quite there yet…

* 10% Self-identify as libertarian

* 23 % responded to questions about the role of government in a way that categorizes them as libertarian

A survey conducted by Zogby for the Cato Institute has put the libertarian vote at around 15 percent. Loosen the wording, and the pool expands. When the Zogby survey asked voters if they would describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian, the number rose to 44 percent. When it simply asked if they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal, a full 59 percent responded yes. (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/)

Libertarian Me

I have turned libertarian over the past few years. There are many strains, but I tend more towards the Hayek/founding fathers variety. That makes me an “impure” medium-core libertarian, although I’m an avid fan of anarcho-capitalist and modern-day libertarian patriarch Murray Rothbard. The man is brilliant and his logic is unassailable, but I still believe in a state as envisioned by the founders.


Christian Me

Social conservatives consider us turncoats and libertines, especially those of us who are conservative Christians. I make my moral decisions based upon my Christian beliefs, but I make political ones based upon our nation’s secular bible, The US Constitution. This leads me to personally oppose gay marriage, but to also declare that the state should not interfere. I also believe, based on the same constitution, that the state may not punish churches that refuse to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

“Libertarianism gets marginalized in American politics because it doesn’t fit into the two-party paradigm. Libertarians want less state intrusion into the market, which aligns them with Republicans, but also less interference in social choices, which aligns them with Democrats. As Massachusetts governor William Weld put it in 1992, I want the government out of your pocketbook and your bedroom.” (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/)

The author goes on to note that “libertarianism is more internally consistent than the Democratic or Republican platforms,” which is what makes it so appealing to rational minded individuals. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of which party wields it. If I oppose liberal democrats hijacking the power of the state in the name of social justice, how can I support George Bush’s Office of Faith Base Initiatives?

“At least the highwayman would take your money and leave you alone.  The government takes your money, then stands around and tells you what to do with it” -- Douglas French, President, Mises Institute

You may be more libertarian than you think.  Christopher Beam has written a pretty good article about libertarianism today entitled, The Trouble With Liberty.  He takes a skeptical view, but he's fairly even-handed, taking only a few gentle cheap shots.  If you're curious about libertarianism and the tea party tie-in, you should go read the whole article.

If you're hungry for more, here are my favorite libertarian links.  There are many, many more than these, but these best accord with my "brand" of libertarianism.

The CATO Institute is America's preeminent libertarian think tank.  CATO@Liberty is their blog.

Reason Magazine is my favorite libertarian publication.  Full of fun and interesting stuff updated daily, with writers such as Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, John Stossel and David Harsanyi.

The flagship of Austrian School Economics is The Ludwig von Mises Institute.  It's not just wonky economics, so don't be scared off.  Fresh articles on freedom and liberty daily, as well as classic writing from the past that are relevant to today's topics.

For a principled criticism of Austrian School Economics, you can read Professor Bryan Caplan's paper, Why I am Not an Austrian Economist